ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday reserved its judgement on a set of appeals challenging the October 2023 ruling on the military trials of civilians.

On the 56th day of hearing, the bench finally reserved the verdict, which is now expected to be pronounced on Friday, coinciding with the anniversary of the events of May 9, 2023, which precipitated the unrest that led to military court proceedings against the rioters.

During Monday`s proceedings, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan informed the constitutional bench that parliament would duly accord deference in due course of time to any observations made by the court regarding the right to appeal for the convicts tried in military courts in cases related to the May 9 violence.

However, he added, since parliament was a sovereign institution, he could not give any specific assurance on behalf of the legislature.

About the accountability within the forces, the attorney general apprised the court that authorities had taken disciplinary action against many senior military officers for dereliction of duty.

Three senior officers a lieutenant general (the then Lahore corps commander), a brigadier and a lieutenant colonel were `compulsorily retired without pension benefits`, he said. Also, he added, 14 others faced career progression halts as a form of admonishment.

The seven-judge bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, was hearing a set of 38 intra-court appeals filed by the federal and provincial governments, as well as the Shuhada Forum Balochistan, challenging the October 2023 ruling on military trials of civilians.

The court had earlier fixed May 5 to exclusively learn about government`s point of view on providing right to appeal to those convicted by military courts in May 9 cases.

Advancing his arguments, the AGP said that the country due to its geographical proximity was a victim of overt and covert war for several decades, therefore it was necessary to swiftly respond to such incidents.

Apparently unconvinced, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail wondered whether the military officers against whom disciplinary action had been initiated were also proceeded on the criminal side. The AGP explained that the criminal cases against them would have beeninitiated if they had committed any criminal act.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that by explaining about the gravity of the May 9 incidents, the AGP in fact was going into the merits of the case when the court did not permit other parties to discuss merits.

Referring to the question of right to appeal, AGP Awan said he was quite confident that Parliament would accord due deference to any observations made by the court in this regard in due course of time.

When Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked him to cite any precedence, the attorney general quoted the SC judgments on matters related to 18th Amendment and extension/reappointment of then army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, with certain directions.

However, Justice Mazhar reminded him that the apex court had then passed `directions and not observations` to parliament.

On the other hand, Justice Aminuddin Khan said the question of appeal did not arise when sections 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of Pakistan Army Act had already been set aside by the SC through the October 2023 judgement.

At the outset, the AGP explained that on May 9, 2023, as many as 39 sensitive installations 23 installations in Punjab, eight in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seven in Sindhand one in Balochistan were attacked in an orchestrated manner as the violence that started at 3pm ended at 7pm at most of the places.

The military installations include GHQ, Rawalpindi, Lahore Corps Commander House, PAF Base in Mianwali, offices of ISI in different cities, cantonments in KP and Quetta, he said.

He said the critical aspect of this violence was the nearly four-hour siege of Lahore Corps Commander House, which is also a camp office of the corps commander, leaving the central command dysfunctional and disrupted as the office was not able to respond if any foreign hostility or aggression had happened on that day.

Tracing political history when former premiers and senior political leaders were assassinated, hanged or jailed, people had never attacked any sensitive installations, the AGP said.

While appearing before the court, columnist Hafeezullah Niazi conceded that the May 9 incident was a gruesome act but requested the court to consider provision of all stages of the right of appeal to the convicts.